The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following petition in a
communication dated August 29, 1984:

We have received information claiming that JAIME AYALA SULCA HUANTA,
a newspaper correspondent of the journal "La República" has disappeared after his arrest
on August 2, 1984 at the Navy facilities in Huanta, Department of Ayacucho. Mr. Ayala
had gone there to complain about police conduct towards his mother who had come to his
house the night before. The Armed Forces Joint Command denied his detention in
Huanta. There is no further information on his whereabouts. All the legal remedies
possible under the prevailing State of Emergency in Peru have been exhausted. We ask
the Commission to take immediate action and request the Government of Peru to
acknowledge his detention, clarify his legal and personal situation and guarantee his
physical integrity. Recently, in the Ayacucho region, numerous disappearances and illegal
executions have occurred after arrests.

In a cablegram dated September 4, 1984 the Commission transmitted the pertinent
parts of the petition to the Government of Peru requesting it to provide information in accordance
with Article 34 (formerly 31) of the Regulations. This request was repeated in a note dated
September 11, 1984, and again in a second note on January 30, 1985 which also considered the
application of Article 42 (formerly 39) of the Regulations whereby the facts reported will be
considered to be true.

In a note dated May 6, 1985 (No 7-5-M/37), the Government of Peru submitted
the following information.

With regard to Case 9425 concerning the citizen Jaime Ayala Sulca, the District
Attorney's Office has taken the corresponding actions to thoroughly investigate the
petition and to determine who is responsible. The investigations commenced on August 2,
1984 as a result of the petition submitted to this District Attorney's Office by the citizen
Carlos Paz Villantoy.

In a note dated May 12, 1985 the Commission transmitted to the petitioner the
pertinent parts of the information transcribed above and requested that he send his observations or
comments within a period of 45 days.

Since the Commission, in its note of October 11, 1985, reiterated the information
to the Government of Peru on pending cases, in process, the Government of Peru, in a note dated
March 26, 1986 (No 7-5-M/44) provided additional information to the Commission on the
progress of the investigation of this case by national authorities. That information was the
following:

Regarding Case 9425, on January 29 the Supreme Court of the Republic, through
its second criminal court, pronounced judgement establishing that the judicial investigation
into the disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca should be continued in the civil courts
under the ad-hoc examining magistrate of Huamanga. In this way the request to transfer
the case to military courts was rejected.

In its communication of April 15, 1986, the Commission transmitted to the petitioner the
pertinent parts of the additional information sent by the Government of Peru and requested his
observations and comments pointing out to him that if they were not received within a period of
45 days, the processing of the case would be discontinued.

In his communication of June 6, 1986, the petitioner sent the following comments
and additional information on the case:

We know that the former Navy Commander of the Huanta Province, Lieutenant
Commander Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén and Second Class Petty Officer A.P. Roman
Martínez Heredia have been accused of the disappearance of Jaime Ayala Sulca, of the
death of six members of the Calqui Presbyterian Church, and also of the arrest and death
of 50 individuals found in common graves in Pucayacu, near Huanta, in August 1984.
Nevertheless, the action against these two men was delayed by a jurisdictional conflict
between the civil courts and the Navy courts.

On January 24, 1986 the Supreme Court decided that the military courts would
have jurisdiction over the Calqui and Pucayacu cases but that the civil courts would have
jurisdiction in the proceedings against Lieutenant Commander Artaza Adrianzén for the
disappearance of Jaime Ayala Sulca. It was not possible to confirm if the same decision is
also applicable to the case of Petty Officer Martínez Heredia.

Lieutenant Commander Artaza Adrianzén has not been seen, nor have his
whereabouts been known, since February 2, almost a week after the Supreme Court
decision, when a military spokesman said that he had been kidnapped. The following
week a television documentary, which implied that Lieutenant Commander Artaza
Adrianzén had been taken out of the country by the Peruvian Navy to avoid trial, was
banned (copies of the reports related to the incident are enclosed).

We have not received any information on Lieutenant Commander Artaza
Adrienzén's status and therefore request the Commission to require the Government to
furnish information on his present whereabouts.

We have also received reports that family members of Jaime Ayala Sulca have
received death threats from anonymous callers, and have been warned not to continue to
insist on the trial. The family of Attorney Augusto Zuñiga has also been threatened.

In a note dated June 23, 1986 the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of
this information and comments to the Government of Peru.

In a note dated July 30, 1986 (No 7-5--M/128), the Government of Peru said the
following:

With respect to Case 9425 it is to be noted that the observations expressed by the
petitioner to the Commission have no value at all since they furnish no legal arguments
whatsoever. Also, it is worth noting that, as in the former case, domestic remedies have
not been exhausted and, therefore, this petition should not be admitted.

In its communication of August 4, 1986, the Commission transmitted the
above-mentioned reply to the petitioner.

CONSIDERING:

That the facts of this case meet all the requirements for admissibility set forth in the
Regulations of the Commission.

That according to the information provided by the Government of Peru, the
investigations of the disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca Huanta, a newspaper correspondent
of the journal "La República", arrested on August 2, 1984, in Huanta, Ayacucho, have not had
positive results, in spite of the long time periods which have elapsed since they were initiated
(August 2, 1984) by the Public Prosecutor's Office.

That, moreover, during these investigations nothing whatsoever has resulted from
the hearing of the case by the Trial Court of Second Instance in Huamanga, Ayacucho against the
presumed guilty parties in this case, Mr. Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén and Mr. Roman Martínez
Heredia, and this is inferred from the note dated May 6, 1985 (No 7-5-M/100)sent by the
Government of Peru to the Commission informing that it grants the Provincial Prosecutor in
Criminal Matters authority "for the most extensive intervention and jurisdiction in the criminal
proceedings against the accused".

That, finally, the Government of Peru provided limited information to the
Commission, two years after the events occurred, barely indicating that the matter is still under
investigation, the only progress being that the case shall continue "in the civil courts and under the
ad-hoc examining magistrate of Huamanga", as stated in the note sent by the Government of Peru
on March 26, 1986 (No 7-5-M/44), p. 2).

That the petitioner, in his comments and observations on the information contained
in the abovementioned note of March 26, 1986, has submitted important and substantial evidence
in view of which not only are the facts of this case presumed to be true, but also that the
presumed guilty parties have not been brought to trial because their whereabouts or status is
unknown.

That in this case it is not appropriate to wait until internal remedies are exhausted,
as requested by the Government of Peru (Note No 7-5-M/128 dated July 30, 1986), because since
these events occurred, sluggishness and lack of results in this investigation constitute an obvious
case of unjustified delay in the administration of justice that, in fact, imply a denial of the same
which would permit clarification of the facts, all of which make completely applicable the
provisions of Article 37 paragraph 2 of the Commission's Regulations.

Moreover, in this case, by reason of the nature of the events, that is, the forced
disappearance of Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca Huanta, the Commission has not been able to apply the
friendly settlement procedure provided for in Article 48, paragraph 1, f of the American
Convention on Human Rights and in Article 45 of its Regulations.

That Article 42 of the Regulations authorizes the Commission to consider the facts
stated in the petition of this case to be true as long as other evidence does not lead to a different
conclusion.

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

RESOLVES:

To presume true the facts reported in the communication of August 29, 1984, on
the arbitrary arrest and disappearance of the newspaper correspondent Mr. Jaime Ayala Sulca
Huanta, which took place in Huanta, Ayacucho on August 2, 1984.

To declare that these facts constitute an extremely serious violation of the right to
life (Art. 4); to personal integrity (Art. 5) and to personal liberty (Art. 7), set forth in the
American Convention on Human Rights.

To recommend to the Government of Peru that it conclude, as fast as possible, the
investigations being carried out at the Trial Court of Huamanga, and, in particular, that it proceed
to bring to trial before the provincial courts the presumed guilty parties in this case, Lieutenant

Commander Alvaro Artaza Adrianzén and Second Class Petty Officer A.P. Román Martínez, in
the provincial courts, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru in
its ruling of January 24, 1986, and that the Commission be informed of the result of these
investigations or of the steps taken.

To recommend to the Government of Peru that it punish the persons responsible
with the most severe penalties established in Peruvian law, and that, also, it grant compensation to
the victim's family members, according to the law.

To request the Government of Peru to inform the Commission, within a period of
60 days, of the decision taken regarding these recommendations. If the period established in
numeral 3 of this Resolution has elapsed with no observations presented by the Government of
Peru, the Commission will include this Resolution in its Annual Report to the General Assembly
of the OAS, as established in Article 63, g of its Regulations.

To transmit this Resolution to the Government of Peru and to the petitioner.